This paper is in the following e-collection/theme issue:

Big Data Analytics for Elder Care (37) Physical Activity for Older People (280) Frailty Detection, Assessment and Prediction (62) Big Data (307)

Published on in Vol 8 (2025)

Preprints (earlier versions) of this paper are available at https://preprints.jmir.org/preprint/75887, first published .
The Role of Physical Activity and Physical Function in Predicting Physical Frailty Transitions in Chinese Older Adults: Longitudinal Observational Study From CHARLS

The Role of Physical Activity and Physical Function in Predicting Physical Frailty Transitions in Chinese Older Adults: Longitudinal Observational Study From CHARLS

The Role of Physical Activity and Physical Function in Predicting Physical Frailty Transitions in Chinese Older Adults: Longitudinal Observational Study From CHARLS

Authors of this article:

Ziwei Zeng1 Author Orcid Image ;   Chun Liang Hsu2 Author Orcid Image ;   Cindy Hui-ping Sit1 Author Orcid Image ;   Stephen Heung-sang Wong1 Author Orcid Image ;   Yijian Yang1, 3 Author Orcid Image
Article Authors Cited by (1) Tweetations Metrics

    1Department of Sports Science and Physical Education, The Chinese University of Hong Kong, Shatin, Hong Kong, China (Hong Kong)

    2Department of Rehabilitation Sciences, The Hong Kong Polytechnic University, Hong Kong, China (Hong Kong)

    3The Jockey Club Institute of Ageing, The Chinese University of Hong Kong, Hong Kong, China (Hong Kong)

    Corresponding Author:

    Yijian Yang, MD, PhD


    Background: Frailty is a dynamic geriatric syndrome associated with adverse health outcomes, yet its progression can be mitigated through targeted interventions.

    Objective: This study aimed to investigate predictors of frailty transitions in Chinese older adults, focusing on physical activity (PA) and physical function.

    Methods: Using data from the China Health and Retirement Longitudinal Study (CHARLS), we examined transitions between frailty states (robust, prefrail, and frail) from 2011 (baseline) to 2013 (follow-up) among 1014 participants aged 65 years and older. The following outcomes were assessed, including frailty using the physical frailty phenotype, PA using a modified International Physical Activity Questionnaire, and physical function using the Short Physical Performance Battery (SPPB) and handgrip strength. Ordinal logistic regression models were used to examine the relationship between PA, physical function, and frailty transitions.

    Results: Results showed that higher PA levels and better physical function reduced the likelihood of worsening frailty or increased the probability of transitioning to robustness. Key findings from the subgroup include: among robust individuals, greater handgrip strength predicted maintained robustness (average marginal effects [AME]=1.12%; P=.02); in prefrail individuals, higher vigorous PA (AME=21.76%; P=.04) and handgrip strength (AME=0.64%; P=.003) increased transitions to robustness; for frail individuals, increased low-intensity PA (AME =22.48%; P=.04) and higher SPPB walking subscores (AME=27.73%; P=.02) promoted improvement to nonfrailty.

    Conclusions: These findings highlight the importance of tailored interventions based on baseline frailty status. Promoting PA and improving physical function, particularly muscle strength and mobility function, may help delay or reverse frailty progression.

    JMIR Aging 2025;8:e75887

    doi:10.2196/75887

    Keywords

    elderly; frailty trajectories; physical performance; strength; mobility 


    The global population is aging at an unprecedented rate, presenting significant challenges to public health and social care systems worldwide [1]. By 2050, the proportion of adults aged 65 years and older in China is projected to reach 26%, reflecting a broader demographic shift that underscores the urgency of addressing age-related health issues such as physical frailty [2]. Frailty, a geriatric syndrome characterized by diminished physiological reserves and increased vulnerability to stressors, is associated with adverse outcomes including falls, disability, hospitalization, and mortality [3,4]. Defined by Fried et al [3] as the presence of 3 or more criteria: weakness, slow gait speed, exhaustion, low activity, and unintentional weight loss, physical frailty is a dynamic condition that is not an inevitable consequence of aging but rather a potentially reversible state [3,5]. Rates of physical frailty among Chinese older adults range from 6% to 17% [6], highlighting the importance of early detection and intervention to mitigate its progression.

    Frailty is typically classified into 3 stages: robust, prefrail, and frail, with individuals transitioning between these stages over time due to a combination of physical, psychological, and environmental factors [7]. Understanding these transitions is crucial for developing targeted interventions to prevent or delay frailty progression. Physical function measures, such as handgrip strength and the Short Physical Performance Battery (SPPB), are increasingly recognized as critical indicators of frailty [8-11]. Handgrip strength, for example, provides insight into muscular strength, functional limitations, and the onset of age-related adverse health conditions, making it a more useful marker of frailty than chronological age alone [8,9]. Similarly, the SPPB, which assesses gait speed, sit-to-stand (STS) performance, and balance, has been widely used to evaluate physical function and predict frailty progression [10-12]. These measures offer a comprehensive understanding of the factors that influence frailty dynamics and complement the role of physical activity (PA) in frailty transitions [13].

    PA has long been recognized as a cornerstone of healthy aging, encompassing any bodily movement produced by skeletal muscles that increases energy expenditure [14]. Beyond its general health benefits, PA has emerged as a key modifiable factor in frailty prevention and management [15]. Regular PA has been shown to improve muscle strength, cardiovascular health, and overall physical function, all of which are critical for reducing the risk of frailty [16-22]. However, the specific types and intensities of PA that influence frailty transitions remain unclear, highlighting the need for further investigation.

    In China, the rapid aging population presents challenges in addressing the burden of frailty and functional decline [23]. Despite the growing recognition of frailty as a public health issue, few studies have examined the specific factors that predict frailty transitions among Chinese older adults. Existing research has primarily focused on Western populations [24,25], and there is limited evidence on how PA and physical function influence frailty transitions in the Chinese context. This gap underscores the need for population-specific research, as contextual factors (eg, lifestyle and health care infrastructure [26]) in China may differ from Western settings. Furthermore, longitudinal follow-up is critical for understanding frailty as a dynamic process rather than a static condition. By observing the same individuals over time, researchers can quantify both progression and recovery across frailty states and relate these transitions to changes in PA and physical function. This design overcomes the limitations of cross-sectional studies where reverse causation and unmeasured baseline differences may obscure causal pathways and provides more robust evidence to inform stage-specific interventions. Understanding these relationships is essential for developing tailored strategies to mitigate frailty in Chinese older adults.

    This study aimed to investigate the predictors of physical frailty transitions in Chinese older adults, with a particular focus on the role of PA participation and physical function. We hypothesized that higher amounts of light, moderate, and vigorous PA, along with greater muscle strength and mobility, would increase the likelihood of transitioning to a more robust status. Conversely, lower amounts of PA across intensity categories and poor physical function would increase the probability of worsening frailty. By examining these relationships, this study provided valuable insights into the role of PA and physical function in physical frailty transitions, with the ultimate goal of informing intervention strategies to delay or prevent frailty progression.


    Study Design

    This was a 2-wave longitudinal observational study using data from the China Health and Retirement Longitudinal Study (CHARLS). We leveraged the baseline survey (Wave 1, 2011) and first follow-up (Wave 2, 2013) to examine within-person transitions among 3 frailty states (robust, prefrail, and frail), and to evaluate how baseline PA and physical function predicted these transitions.

    Ethical Considerations

    Data were obtained from CHARLS, a nationally representative survey designed to examine the aging process among Chinese households and individuals aged 45 years and older [27]. The sampling design used a 4-stage, stratified, cluster method, covering 150 county-level and 450 village-level units across China [28]. Ethical approval was granted by the ethical review committee of Peking University (approval IRB00001052-11015), and all participants provided written informed consent. CHARLS adheres to the declaration of Helsinki and China’s Personal Information Protection Law. The CHARLS database ensures strict privacy protection and anonymization during data collection and processing to safeguard participants’ personal information.

    Study Participants

    The CHARLS survey collected comprehensive data on demographics, anthropometrics, health status, functioning, and physical measurements [27]. This study used data from the first 2 waves of CHARLS (2011 and 2013), which share identical sampling procedures and therefore draw from the same population base. Although frailty is typically a slow-progressing condition, previous longitudinal research suggests that meaningful changes, both improvements and declines, can be captured within a 2-year period among older adults [29,30]. Thus, the Wave 1 (2011) and Wave 2 (2013) data are appropriate for examining frailty transitions in this context.

    While the Law of the People’s Republic of China on the Protection of the Rights and Interests of the Elderly (1996) defines older adults as individuals aged  60  years and older, we adopted the United Nations’ recommendation of  ages  65  years and older. This definition aligns with international standards in frailty research and better targets the population at higher risk for physical frailty in China [31].

    For this study, we first restricted the sample to respondents who completed both Wave 1 and Wave 2 data collection. From this sample, we included participants who met the following criteria: (1) participants aged 65 years and older at baseline (2011); (2) they provided sufficient data on physical frailty (at least 3 components), PA, and physical function (at least 1 component of the SPPB) across both waves; and (3) had consistent and valid data for gender, body height, and body weight across both waves (eg, mismatched gender data between waves were excluded).

    Measures

    Physical Frailty

    Physical frailty was assessed using the Physical Frailty Phenotype (PFP) scale, developed from the Cardiovascular Health Study (CHS) [3]. The scale comprises five criteria: (1) weakness, (2) slowness, (3) exhaustion, (4) low activity, and (5) shrinking. The PFP scale was adapted and validated for use in the CHARLS to examine physical frailty in older Chinese adults [32-35]. Each criterion was scored as 1 point if met, with a total score ranging from 0 to 5. Participants were categorized as “Robust” (0 criteria met), “Pre-frail” (1‐2 criteria met), or “Frail” (3‐5 criteria met) [36]. Detailed definitions and scoring for each criterion are provided in Table 1.

    Table 1. Operationalization of the Physical Frailty Phenotype in the China Health and Retirement Longitudinal Study (CHARLS) compared to the Cardiovascular Health Study (CHS).
    PFPb componentCHSc definitionCHARLSa adaptation
    DefinitionValues
    WomenMen
    WeaknessHandgrip strength: lowest 20% (by gender and BMI).Handgrip strength
    • BMI ≤20.6kg/m2: ≤18.0kg
    • 20.6<BMI≤23.1kg/m2:≤18.2kg
    • 23.1<BMI ≤25.7kg/m2: ≤20.0kg
    • BMI >25.7kg/m2: ≤20.0kg
    • BMI ≤20.0kg/m2: ≤27.0kg
    • 20.0<BMI≤22.0kg/m2: ≤28.5kg
    • 22.0<BMI ≤24.4kg/m2: ≤30.0kg
    • BMI >24.4kg/m2: ≤31.5kg
    SlownessWalking time/15 feet: slowest 20% (by gender and height).Walking speed (2.5 meters)
    • Body height ≤151cm: ≤0.41m/s
    • Body height >151cm: ≤0.45m/s
    • Body height ≤162cm: ≤0.47m/s
    • Body height >162cm: ≤0.50m/s
    Exhaustion“Exhaustion” (self-report).Self-reported
    • Felt “I felt everything I did was an effort” or “I could not get going” about 3‐4 days or 5‐7 days in a week.
    Low activityKcals/week: lowest 20%:
    men:<383 Kcals/week; women:<270 Kcals/week.    		Self-reported
    • Answered “no” to: “During a usual week, did you do any vigorous activities/moderate physical effort/walking for at least ten minutes continuously.”
    ShrinkingBaseline: >10 lbs lost unintentionally in the previous year.Self-reported
    • Lost 5 or more kilograms in the last year in Wave 1 (2011).
    • Weight declines 5 or more kilograms between Wave 1 (2011) and Wave 2 (2013).

    aCHARLS China Health and Retirement Longitudinal Study.

    bPFP Physical Frailty Phenotype.

    cCHS Cardiovascular Health Study.

    Initially, mortality was considered a key transition outcome, but upon further review, it was found that participants who had died by Wave 2 did not provide sufficient baseline data for inclusion. Therefore, mortality was not considered as a transition outcome in this study. Instead, we focused on the 3 states of physical frailty (robust, prefrail, and frail). Frailty transitions were defined as movements between these three states over time, categorized as follows: remain robust, robust to prefrail, robust to frail, prefrail to robust, remain prefrail, prefrail to frail, frail to robust, frail to prefrail, and remain frail.

    Physical Activity

    PA was assessed using a modified version of the International Physical Activity Questionnaire (IPAQ), a widely used tool for PA assessment [27]. Differences between CHARLS and the original IPAQ included: (1) PA was assessed over a “usual week” rather than the “last 7 days,” (2) sedentary behavior was not recorded, and (3) PA was reported as discrete time categories rather than continuous data [37]. PA data included intensity (vigorous, moderate, and low-intensity), duration (<30 min, 30 min–2 h, 2‐4 h, and ≥4 h), and frequency (1‐7 d/wk). PA volume was calculated using metabolic equivalents (METs): vigorous-intensity=8.0 METs, moderate-intensity=4.0 METs, and low-intensity (walking)=3.3 METs [37,38]. Vigorous PA MET-minutes/week=8.0×vigorous-intensity activity minutes×vigorous-intensity days; Moderate PA MET-minutes/week=4.0×moderate-intensity activity minutes × moderate-intensity days; and low-intensity PA MET-minutes/week=3.3×walking minutes×walking days [37,38]. Total PA was categorized into four types based on MET-minutes/week for each intensity level: (1) null type=0, (2) type 1: <600, (3) type 2: 600‐3000, and (4) type 3: >3000, following the IPAQ scoring protocol and previously applied in similar Chinese cohorts [37,39].

    Physical Function

    Physical function was assessed using the SPPB, which includes tasks measuring gait speed, STS test time, and standing balance. Implementation details and scoring for the Chinese population were described by Zhong et al [40]. Each test is scored from 0 to 4, with higher scores indicating better performance. The total SPPB score (range 0‐12) was classified into three groups: 0‐6 (poor performers), 7‐9 (fair performers), and 10‐12 (good performers) [41].

    Handgrip strength was assessed using a handheld dynamometer (Yuejian WL-1000; Nantong Yuejian Physical Measurement Instrument Co Ltd). Participants were instructed to stand upright, maintain a 90° elbow flexion, and perform maximal grip exertion for 3‐5 seconds. A total of 2 trials were conducted on each hand, and the highest value (kg) across all 4 trials was used for analysis [27].

    Covariates

    Covariates were selected based on their relevance to physical frailty, PA, and physical function. These included age, gender (man=0 and woman=1), BMI, marital status (unmarried=0 and married=1), education level (illiterate=1, no formal education=2, elementary school=3, and middle school or above=4), self-rated health (poor or fair=0 and good or very good or excellent=1), fall history (no=0 and yes=1), activity of daily living (ADL) limitation (without=0 and with=1), instrumental activity of daily living (IADL) limitation (without=0 and with=1), number of chronic diseases (0=0, 1=1, and ≥2=2), pain status (no=0 and yes=1), current smoking status (no=0 and yes=1), and current drinking status (no=0 and yes=1).

    Statistical Analysis

    Data analysis was conducted using Stata 15.0 (StataCorp LP), with statistical significance set at P<.05. Descriptive statistics (mean [SD] for continuous variables and n [%] for categorical variables) were used to summarize baseline characteristics. Multiple imputation by chained equations addressed missing data, with results combined across 20 imputations [42]. Differences across frailty groups at baseline were examined using the 1-way ANOVA test (normally distributed data) or the Kruskal-Wallis H test (non-normally distributed data) for continuous variables, and χ2 tests for categorical variables. Post hoc pairwise comparisons were performed with Bonferroni corrections as appropriate.

    Ordinal logistic regression was used to model the relationship between predictors (PA and physical function) and the ordered outcome of frailty transitions, adjusting for demographic and health-related covariates [43]. Average marginal effects (AMEs) were calculated to assess the impact of a 1-unit increase in a predictor on the probability of frailty transition state, when holding other variables constant. To assess potential circularity from including handgrip strength (one frailty criterion) as a predictor, we conducted a sensitivity analysis omitting handgrip strength from the model. Robust standard errors were used to account for potential heteroskedasticity. Predictive accuracy was assessed using a classification table, and discriminate ability (remain frail or worsen to frailty vs others) was evaluated using receiver operating characteristic (ROC) curves and the area under the curve (AUC) was calculated along with corresponding 95% CIs and P values to assess statistical significance [44]. Separate ROC curves were generated for each baseline frailty status.


    Sample Characteristics and Comparisons

    A total of 1014 participants were included (see Figure 1), with 371 categorized as robust, 561 as prefrail, and 82 as frail at baseline. Figure 2 shows the transition patterns from baseline to follow-up. Among robust participants, 39% (145/371) transitioned to prefrailty, and 1% (4/371) transitioned to frailty. Among prefrail participants, 7% (42/561) became frail, while 30% (169/561) reverted to a robust state. Among frail participants, 15% (12/82) regained robustness, and 57% (47/82) became prefrail.

    ‎
    Figure 1. Flowchart of participant selection.
    ‎
    Figure 2. Sankey diagram of frailty status transition from Wave 1 (2011) to Wave 2 (2013).

    The mean age of the study population was 71.1 years (SD 5.0, range 65‐90 y), with significant variations across frailty groups (robust: 70.2 y [SD 4.4], prefrail: 71.4 y [SD 5.1], and frail: 73.0 y [SD 5.8]; P<.001). Gender distribution was balanced (48% women). Frailer participants were significantly older, had lower educational attachment, poorer self-rated health, higher fall history, and greater limitations in ADL and IADL, as well as more pain and chronic diseases compared to their healthier counterparts (P≤.01). Detailed baseline characteristics are presented in Table 2.

    Table 2. Demographic characteristics of participants by baseline frailty status.
    VariablesTotal sample (N=1014)Robust (n=371)Prefrail (n=561)Frail (n=82)P value
    Age (years), n (%)<.001a
    65‐74775 (76.43)312 (84.10)414 (73.80)49 (59.76)
    75‐84229 (22.58)58 (15.63)141 (25.13)30 (36.59)
    ≥8510 (0.99)1 (0.27)6 (1.07)3 (3.66)
    Gender, n (%).02a
    Women486 (47.93)156 (42.05)286 (50.98)44 (53.66)
    Men528 (52.07)215 (57.95)275 (49.02)38 (46.34)
    BMI (kg/m2), mean (SD)22.37 (3.57)22.65 (3.64)22.14 (3.47)22.66 (3.89).09
    Marital status, n (%).91
    Unmarried253 (24.95)91 (24.53)140 (25.96)22 (26.83)
    Married761 (75.05)280 (75.47)421 (75.04)60 (73.17)
    Education level, n (%).004a
    Illiterate392 (38.66)123 (33.15)226 (40.29)43 (52.44)
    Primary and lower201 (19.82)69 (18.60)119 (21.21)13 (15.85)
    Secondary education237 (23.37)93 (25.07)130 (23.17)14 (17.07)
    College and above184 (18.15)86 (23.18)86 (15.33)12 (14.63)
    Self-rated health, n (%)<.001a
    Poor or fair825 (81.36)268 (72.24)481 (85.74)76 (92.68)
    Good or very good or excellent 189 (18.64)103 (27.76)80 (14.26)6 (7.32)
    Fall history, n (%).01a
    Yes176 (17.36)47 (12.67)111 (19.79)18 (21.95)
    No838 (82.64)324 (87.33)450 (80.21)64 (78.05)
    ADLb limitation, n (%)<.001a
    With261 (25.74)58 (15.63)160 (28.52)43 (52.44)
    Without753 (74.26)313 (84.37)401 (71.48)39 (47.56)
    IADLc limitation, n (%)<.001a
    With291 (28.70)60 (16.17)178 (31.73)53 (64.63)
    Without723 (71.30)311 (83.83)383 (68.27)29 (35.37)
    Number of chronic diseases, n (%).007a
    0270 (26.63)118 (31.81)141 (25.13)11 (13.41)
    1285 (28.11)102 (27.49)159 (28.34)24 (29.27)
    ≥2459 (45.27)151 (40.70)261 (46.52)47 (57.32)
    Pain, n (%)<.001a
    Yes358 (35.31)80 (21.56)232 (41.35)46 (56.10)
    No656 (64.69)291 (78.44)329 (58.65)36 (43.90)
    Current smoking, n (%).51
    Yes423 (41.72)162 (43.67)225 (40.11)36 (43.90)
    No591 (58.28)209 (56.33)336 (59.89)46 (56.10)
    Current drinking, n (%).02a
    Yes306 (30.18)129 (34.77)160 (28.52)17 (20.73)
    No708 (69.18)242 (65.23)401 (71.48)65 (79.27)
    SPPBd total score (points), mean (SD)8.92 (2.11)9.84 (1.68)8.66 (2.06)6.55 (1.89)<.001a
    SPPB-Walk (points), mean (SD)2.47 (0.99)2.82 (0.85)2.38 (1.00)1.46 (0.72)<.001a
    SPPB-STSe (points), mean (SD)2.98 (1.16)3.37 (0.93)2.86 (1.18)2.01 (1.20)<.001a
    SPPB-Balance (points), mean (SD)3.48 (0.81)3.64 (0.68)3.42 (0.84)3.07 (0.91)<.001a

    aIndicates statistical significance (P<.05).

    bADL: activity of daily living.

    cIADL: instrumental activity of daily living.

    dSPPB: Short Physical Performance Battery.

    eSTS: sit-to-stand.

    Table 2 and Figure 3 show that robust participants engaged in significantly more moderate and low-intensity PA compared to pre-frail and frail individuals (P<.001), with vigorous PA significantly higher in robust individuals compared to frail (P=.003). Prefrail participants also demonstrated higher PA levels compared to frail individuals (P≤.02). Robust participants exhibited greater handgrip strength, faster walking speeds, shorter STS time, and higher SPPB scores compared to prefrail participants, and prefrail participants performed better than frail participants (P<.001)

    ‎
    Figure 3. Physical activity participation and physical function across physical frailty groups at baseline. The “*” sign denotes significant differences between robust and pre-frail; “^” denotes significant differences between prefrail and frail; “#” denotes significant differences between robust and frail. The shape of the violin plot represents a kernel density estimate, illustrating the distribution of data across different values. The wider section of the violin indicates a denser data distribution. The thick line in the center of the violin marks the median, while the box plot shows the IQR and outliers. MET: metabolic equivalent; PA: physical activity; STS: sit-to-stand.

    Predictors of Frailty Transitions

    For participants robust at baseline, increased handgrip strength (AME=1.12%, 95% CI 0.21-2.03; P=.02) was associated with a higher probability of remaining robust, while decreased handgrip strength (AME=−1.06%, 95% CI −1.93 to −0.19; P=.02) was linked to a higher probability of transitioning to prefrailty (see Figure 4A).

    ‎
    Figure 4. Average marginal effect (AME) of each predictor on the probability of frailty transition in older adults. (A) “Robust” at baseline; (B) “Pre-frail” at baseline; (C) “Frail” at baseline. Notes: AME reflects the change in the probability of each frailty transition at follow-up based on a 1-unit change in a predictor. The “*” sign denotes P<.05 and “**” denotes P<.01. PA: physical activity; SPPB: Short Physical Performance Battery; STS: sit-to-stand.

    Among prefrail participants, increased participation in vigorous PA (type 2; AME=21.76%, 95% CI 1.31%-42.20%; P=.04) and better handgrip strength (AME=0.64%, 95% CI 0.21%-1.07%; P=.003) were associated with a greater probability of transitioning to robust state. Conversely, decreased vigorous PA (type 2) participation (AME=−5.12%, 95% CI −8.38% to −1.87%; P=.002) and handgrip strength (AME=−0.23%, 95% CI −0.40% to −0.07%; P=.005) were linked to a higher likelihood of worsening to frailty. Furthermore, decreased handgrip strength (AME=−0.41%, 95% CI −0.70% to −0.13%; P=.005) also increased the probability of remaining prefrail (see Figure 4B).

    For frail participants, increased low-intensity PA (type 1) participation (AME=22.48%, 95% CI 1.24-43.72; P=.04) and higher SPPB walking subscore (AME=27.73%, 95% CI 4.95%-50.51%; P=.02) were associated with an increased probability of improving to robust state. Decreased moderate (type 3; AME=−22.98%, 95% CI −39.17% to −6.79%; P=.005) and low-intensity (type 1; AME=−24.02%, 95% CI −46.76% to −1.27%; P=.04) PA participation and SPPB walking subscore (AME=−43.68%, 95% CI −75.56% to −11.80%; P=.007), along with increased walking speed (AME =157.77%, 95% CI 10.06%-305.49%; P=.04), were linked to a higher likelihood of remaining frail (see Figure 4C).

    In addition to PA and physical function, several covariates were significantly associated with frailty transitions. Detailed regression results are presented in Tables S1-S3 in Multimedia Appendix 1.

    Sensitivity Analysis

    When handgrip strength was removed from the predictor list, the direction and magnitude of AMEs for PA and SPPB subcomponents were unchanged across all baseline frailty states. However, there is one exception: among prefrail participants, the AME for vigorous PA (type 2) on transitioning to robust status attenuated to 20.68% (95% CI −0.23  to  41.60) with P=.05, compared to P=.04 in the full model. This suggests that the previously observed significance for vigorous PA in prefrail individuals is moderately dependent on concurrent strength measures (see Tables S4–S6 in Multimedia Appendix 1).

    Discriminative Ability of Physical Activity and Physical Function Variables for Frailty Transition

    Figure 5 presents the discriminative performance of PA and physical function variables for frailty transitions across baseline frailty states. Among robust participants, predictors distinguished those who transitioned to frailty from those who remained non-frail with fair accuracy (AUC=0.75, 95% CI 0.53‐0.92; P=.04). In the prefrail group, the model similarly discriminated individuals who worsened to frailty from those who remained or improved (AUC=0.75, 95% CI 0.67‐0.82, P<.001). Finally, among frail participants, predictors showed good accuracy in identifying those who persisted in frailty versus those who recovered (AUC=0.84, 95% CI 0.75‐0.93; P<.001).

    ‎
    Figure 5. Receiver operating characteristic (ROC) curves for discriminative ability of physical activity and physical function variables. (1) ROC curve 1 (AUC1) for discriminating transition to frailty versus nonfrailty among participants with robust baseline status; (2) ROC curve 2 (AUC2) for discriminating transition to frailty versus nonfrailty among participants with prefrail baseline status. (3) ROC curve 3 (AUC3) for discriminating frailty persistence versus transition to nonfrailty among participants with frail baseline status. AUC: area under the curve.

    Principal Findings and Comparison With Previous Works

    The findings in this study provide valuable insights into how levels of PA participation and physical function measures influence frailty dynamics and highlight how these factors may differ across baseline frailty stages in Chinese older adults. Our results are consistent with the hypothesis that greater amounts of PA and better physical function are associated with a decreased likelihood of worsening frailty or a greater chance of transitioning to a more robust status. This is consistent with previous studies suggesting that PA and physical function are crucial in mitigating frailty progression [13,15]. However, the effect of these factors was not consistent across different baseline frailty states, suggesting that interventions may need to be tailored according to an individual’s frailty stage.

    Among participants who were robust at baseline, increased handgrip strength was associated with a higher probability of remaining robust. Conversely, decreased handgrip strength was linked to a higher probability of transitioning to the prefrail stage. Handgrip strength is widely recognized as a reliable indicator of overall muscular strength because it reflects the integrity of the neuromuscular system and correlates strongly with strength in other muscle groups [9,45]. As a simple, noninvasive measure, it provides valuable insights into an individual’s functional capacity and overall health status, making it a practical tool for assessing frailty risk [9,46]. Our finding highlights the importance of maintaining muscular strength in healthy older adults, as it not only helps preserve physical function but also reduces the risk of transitioning to a more frail state [8,9]. In addition, our results suggest that PA level alone did not significantly predict the maintenance or decline in frailty state in this population. It is possible that PA in this group may not have been sufficiently differentiated or intense enough to cause a clear shift in frailty status, as the robust state may represent a relatively stable and resilient group. These findings support that strength-based indicators like handgrip strength may play a more critical role in maintaining or improving frailty status [8,9], indicating that muscle strength could be a more direct determinant of frailty transitions in this group. Strengthening interventions, such as resistance training, could be particularly effective for maintaining robustness in this group and preventing the onset of frailty [47].

    For participants who were prefrail at baseline, the findings underscore the importance of vigorous PA and handgrip strength in promoting robustness among prefrail individuals. The amount of vigorous PA per week, which exceeds the recommended PA levels for older adults [48], has been shown to enhance overall health status, and thus for reversing prefrailty [49]. The positive association between vigorous PA and improved frailty status suggests that higher-intensity activities may stimulate physiological adaptations that counteract the decline in physical function associated with aging [50,51]. Conversely, the observed relationships between reduced PA, decreased handgrip strength, and worsening frailty highlight the risks of physical inactivity and muscle loss in this population [52,53]. These results emphasize the need for early and targeted interventions that combine vigorous PA and strength training to mitigate frailty progression for individuals in the prefrail stage. By addressing these modifiable risk factors early in the prefrail stage, it may be possible to delay or even prevent the onset of frailty, ultimately improving the quality of life of older adults and reducing the burden on healthcare systems [54].

    In frail participants, increased participation in low-intensity PA and a higher SPPB walking subscore were associated with an increased probability of improving to a robust status. This finding is encouraging, as it suggests that even low-intensity PA can be effective in improving function in frail individuals, potentially reversing frailty and promoting recovery to a more robust state. This aligns with previous studies demonstrating the benefits of low-intensity exercises, such as walking and flexibility training, for frail older adults [55]. Furthermore, decreased participation in moderate and low-intensity PA, along with a lower SPPB walking subscore, was linked to a higher likelihood of remaining frail. This highlights the bidirectional relationship between PA and frailty: while reduced PA increases the risk of frailty, frailty itself can limit PA engagement due to physical limitations. This self-reinforcing cycle of decline, wherein frailty impedes PA participation, has been well-documented in the literature [15,47,56-64]. Our findings further emphasize this dynamic interaction, underscoring the need for early intervention to disrupt this cycle.

    Unexpectedly, increased walking speed was associated with a higher likelihood of remaining frail in this study. While counterintuitive, this finding may reflect methodological and physiological nuances specific to the frail cohort. First, the wide CI (10.06%‐305.49%) indicates substantial variability in individual responses, suggesting that small speed improvements in some participants did not translate to holistic functional recovery. Second, frail older adults often experience fluctuations in mobility due to underlying health conditions, which may temporarily elevate walking speed without altering overall frailty status [65-67]. Thus, while improved speed is generally desirable, its isolated increase may be insufficient to reverse multifactorial frailty in this population. Future research should incorporate other mobility measures, such as walking endurance or dual-task gait performance, to better capture functional changes in frail individuals.

    Interestingly, only 28% of participants (23/82) classified as frail at baseline remained frail after 2 years, with a recovery rate notably higher than the roughly 50% reported in other longitudinal studies [24]. Several methodological and cohort-specific factors likely contribute to this finding. For instance, selective attrition (ie, exclusion of participants who died or were unable to complete Wave 2) removes the most vulnerable individuals, biasing recovery rates to be upward. In addition, the relatively shorter follow-up period (2 y) and younger age of participants in our study may have contributed to these findings, as improvements in frailty are often more pronounced in younger populations over shorter timescales [24,25]. Finally, reliance on self-reported and occasionally incomplete frailty component data can introduce measurement error, further exaggerating transition rates. Taken together, these factors suggest that the high observed recovery rate may overstate true physiological reversal of frailty and should be interpreted with caution. Future studies with longer follow-up, objective frailty measures, and comprehensive attrition tracking are needed to distinguish genuine recovery from methodological artifacts.

    The findings of this study underscore the importance of tailoring interventions based on baseline frailty status. For robust individuals, PA interventions should focus on maintaining strength through resistance training and preventing the decline of muscle function. In prefrail individuals, the emphasis should be on increasing the intensity of PA, especially vigorous activities, and improving handgrip strength to delay or prevent further frailty progression. Our sensitivity analysis confirms that most associations between PA, SPPB subcomponents, and frailty transitions are robust to the exclusion of handgrip strength. The borderline attenuation of the vigorous PA effect among prefrail participants (P=.05) indicates a possible interplay between high-intensity activity and muscle strength, warranting further investigation into tailoring PA prescriptions according to baseline strength levels. For frail individuals, interventions should prioritize low-intensity PA and the improvement of basic functional abilities to prevent further deterioration. In addition, factors such as age and gender differences may influence responses to PA interventions, warranting further investigation. Future research with larger sample sizes is needed to explore how personalized interventions can better address the needs of frail individuals by setting achievable goals that gradually build functional capacity without overexertion [68].

    This study has several strengths, including its focus on a large cohort of Chinese older adults and the inclusion of both PA and physical function measures. The AUC of discriminative ability for frailty transition capacity is good for participants with a frail state at baseline, suggesting that the model performs well. For individuals with nonfrail status at baseline, the AUC is 0.75, indicating fair discriminative capacity [44]. This is considered meaningful in the context of frailty transitions, which are influenced by a wide range of biological, behavioral, and environmental factors [4].

    However, the study also has several limitations. First, the use of self-reported PA data may introduce recall bias, although the IPAQ has been widely used and validated in older populations [37]. Second, the exclusion of participants with missing data may have introduced selection bias. While the CHARLS manual outlined potential reasons for missing data (eg, feeling unsafe or incapable to perform the tests), these reasons were not clearly indicated in the dataset. As a result, it is challenging to accurately determine the cause of missing data for most participants. To avoid speculation, we only proceeded with the available data. This limitation may have contributed to the selection bias as participants appeared healthier at follow-up compared to baseline. Furthermore, our analytic sample included 52% (528/1014) men and 48% (486/1014) women, whereas many older-adult cohort studies report a female majority due to women’s greater longevity [69]. This near-equal sex distribution likely reflects our requirement that participants survive and complete both CHARLS waves (2011 and 2013). Frailer individuals, disproportionately women at advanced ages, were more likely to die or be lost to follow-up, thus attenuating the expected women predominance. We acknowledge this potential selection bias and its implications for generalizability. Third, despite the longitudinal design, this study is observational and cannot establish causal relationships between PA amounts, physical function, and frailty transitions. Longitudinal studies with longer follow-up periods and larger sample sizes could provide further insights into the dynamic nature of frailty and its predictors. Fourth, our findings are based on a specific cohort of Chinese older adults, and the generalizability of these results to other populations remains uncertain. Further studies are needed to explore how these predictors of frailty transitions may vary across different cultural, social, and economic contexts. Finally, our study focused on physical frailty and did not consider other dimensions of frailty, such as cognitive or social frailty, which may also influence frailty transitions. Future research should incorporate a broader range of determinants to provide a more holistic understanding of frailty dynamics.

    Conclusions

    In conclusion, this study provides important insights into the role of PA participation and physical function in frailty transitions among older Chinese adults. Our findings suggest that both PA and physical function measures significantly influence frailty dynamics, with varying effects depending on baseline frailty status. Tailored interventions that address the specific needs of robust, prefrail, and frail individuals are essential for preventing or delaying frailty progression. Future research should explore more personalized approaches to PA interventions, especially for frail individuals, to ensure that activities align with their functional capacity and promote meaningful improvement in physical function.

    Acknowledgments

    This study used data from the two waves of the China Health and Retirement Longitudinal Study (CHARLS), collected from 2011 to 2013. We would like to express our sincere gratitude to the CHARLS research team and all the participants for their valuable contributions to this study.

    Authors' Contributions

    ZZ and YY conceptualized and designed the research. ZZ performed the data analysis, interpreted the results, and drafted the initial manuscript. CLH, CH-PS, SH-SW, and YY provided critical review and edits to the manuscript. All authors have read and approved the final version of the paper.

    Conflicts of Interest

    None declared.

    Multimedia Appendix 1

    Ordinal logistic regression analysis of predictors and covariates associated with frailty transitions.

    DOCX File, 56 KB
    1. Chen X, Giles J, Yao Y, et al. The path to healthy ageing in China: a Peking University–Lancet Commission. The Lancet. Dec 2022;400(10367):1967-2006. [CrossRef]
    2. Mather M, Kilduff L. Aging and health in China: what can we learn from the world’s largest population of older people. Population Reference Bureau; 2020. URL: https://www.prb.org/resources/china-aging-worlds-largest-population-older-people/ [Accessed 2025-08-25]
    3. Fried LP, Tangen CM, Walston J, et al. Frailty in older adults: evidence for a phenotype. J Gerontol A Biol Sci Med Sci. Mar 2001;56(3):M146-M156. [CrossRef] [Medline]
    4. Bauer JM, Sieber CC. Sarcopenia and frailty: a clinician’s controversial point of view. Exp Gerontol. Jul 2008;43(7):674-678. [CrossRef] [Medline]
    5. Kojima G, Taniguchi Y, Iliffe S, Jivraj S, Walters K. Transitions between frailty states among community-dwelling older people: A systematic review and meta-analysis. Ageing Res Rev. Mar 2019;50:81-88. [CrossRef] [Medline]
    6. He B, Ma Y, Wang C, et al. Prevalence and risk factors for frailty among community-dwelling older people in China: a systematic review and meta-analysis. J Nutr Health Aging. 2019;23(5):442-450. [CrossRef] [Medline]
    7. Op het Veld LPM, van Rossum E, Kempen G, de Vet HCW, Hajema K, Beurskens A. Fried phenotype of frailty: cross-sectional comparison of three frailty stages on various health domains. BMC Geriatr. Jul 9, 2015;15:77. [CrossRef] [Medline]
    8. Chung CJ, Wu C, Jones M, et al. Reduced handgrip strength as a marker of frailty predicts clinical outcomes in patients with heart failure undergoing ventricular assist device placement. J Card Fail. May 2014;20(5):310-315. [CrossRef] [Medline]
    9. Syddall H, Cooper C, Martin F, Briggs R, Aihie Sayer A. Is grip strength a useful single marker of frailty? Age Ageing. Nov 2003;32(6):650-656. [CrossRef] [Medline]
    10. Cruz-Jentoft AJ, Baeyens JP, Bauer JM, et al. Sarcopenia: European consensus on definition and diagnosis: Report of the European Working Group on Sarcopenia in Older People. Age Ageing. Jul 2010;39(4):412-423. [CrossRef] [Medline]
    11. Verghese J, Xue X. Identifying frailty in high functioning older adults with normal mobility. Age Ageing. May 2010;39(3):382-385. [CrossRef] [Medline]
    12. Guralnik JM, Simonsick EM, Ferrucci L, et al. A short physical performance battery assessing lower extremity function: association with self-reported disability and prediction of mortality and nursing home admission. J Gerontol. Mar 1994;49(2):M85-M94. [CrossRef] [Medline]
    13. Lang PO, Michel JP, Zekry D. Frailty syndrome: a transitional state in a dynamic process. Gerontology. 2009;55(5):539-549. [CrossRef] [Medline]
    14. Physical activity. World Health Organization. 2018. URL: https://www.who.int/news-room/fact-sheets/detail/physical-activity [Accessed 2025-08-21]
    15. O’Connell ML, Coppinger T, McCarthy AL. The role of nutrition and physical activity in frailty: A review. Clin Nutr ESPEN. Feb 2020;35:1-11. [CrossRef] [Medline]
    16. Pate RR, Pratt M, Blair SN, et al. Physical activity and public health. A recommendation from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention and the American College of Sports Medicine. JAMA. Feb 1, 1995;273(5):402-407. [CrossRef] [Medline]
    17. Sattelmair J, Pertman J, Ding EL, Kohl HW III, Haskell W, Lee IM. Dose response between physical activity and risk of coronary heart disease. Circulation. Aug 16, 2011;124(7):789-795. [CrossRef] [Medline]
    18. Aune D, Norat T, Leitzmann M, Tonstad S, Vatten LJ. Physical activity and the risk of type 2 diabetes: a systematic review and dose–response meta-analysis. Eur J Epidemiol. Jul 2015;30(7):529-542. [CrossRef]
    19. Giovannucci E, Ascherio A, Rimm EB, Colditz GA, Stampfer MJ, Willett WC. Physical activity, obesity, and risk for colon cancer and adenoma in men. Ann Intern Med. Mar 1, 1995;122(5):327-334. [CrossRef] [Medline]
    20. Sherrington C, Michaleff ZA, Fairhall N, et al. Exercise to prevent falls in older adults: an updated systematic review and meta-analysis. Br J Sports Med. Dec 2017;51(24):1750-1758. [CrossRef]
    21. Vagetti GC, Barbosa Filho VC, Moreira NB, Oliveira VD, Mazzardo O, Campos WD. Association between physical activity and quality of life in the elderly: a systematic review, 2000-2012. Braz J Psychiatry. 2014;36(1):76-88. [CrossRef] [Medline]
    22. McPhee JS, French DP, Jackson D, Nazroo J, Pendleton N, Degens H. Physical activity in older age: perspectives for healthy ageing and frailty. Biogerontology. Jun 2016;17(3):567-580. [CrossRef]
    23. Jia L, Du Y, Chu L, et al. Prevalence, risk factors, and management of dementia and mild cognitive impairment in adults aged 60 years or older in China: a cross-sectional study. Lancet Public Health. Dec 2020;5(12):e661-e671. [CrossRef] [Medline]
    24. Rivera-Almaraz A, Salinas-Rodríguez A, Gutiérrez-Peña E, Manrique-Espinoza BS. Predictors of frailty transitions in Mexican older adults. J Gerontol A Biol Sci Med Sci. Apr 1, 2024;79(4):glae068. [CrossRef] [Medline]
    25. Rodríguez-Laso Á, García-García FJ, Rodríguez-Mañas L. Transitions Between Frailty States and Its Predictors in a Cohort of Community-Dwelling Spaniards. J Am Med Dir Assoc. Mar 2022;23(3):524. [CrossRef] [Medline]
    26. Majid Z, Welch C, Davies J, Jackson T. Global frailty: The role of ethnicity, migration and socioeconomic factors. Maturitas. Sep 2020;139:33-41. [CrossRef] [Medline]
    27. Zhao Y, Hu Y, Smith JP, Strauss J, Yang G. Cohort profile: the China Health and Retirement Longitudinal Study (CHARLS). Int J Epidemiol. Feb 2014;43(1):61-68. [CrossRef] [Medline]
    28. Wang R, Chen Z, Zhou Y, Shen L, Zhang Z, Wu X. Melancholy or mahjong? Diversity, frequency, type, and rural-urban divide of social participation and depression in middle- and old-aged Chinese: A fixed-effects analysis. Soc Sci Med. Oct 2019;238:112518. [CrossRef] [Medline]
    29. Lee JSW, Auyeung TW, Leung J, Kwok T, Woo J. Transitions in frailty states among community-living older adults and their associated factors. J Am Med Dir Assoc. Apr 2014;15(4):281-286. [CrossRef] [Medline]
    30. McHugh JE, Dowling M, Butler A, Lawlor BA. Psychological distress and frailty transitions over time in community-dwelling older adults. Ir J Psychol Med. Jun 2016;33(2):111-119. [CrossRef] [Medline]
    31. Wang H, Chen H. Aging in China: challenges and opportunities. China CDC Wkly. Jul 8, 2022;4(27):601-602. [CrossRef] [Medline]
    32. Xu W, Li YX, Hu Y, Wu C. Association of frailty with recovery from disability among community-dwelling Chinese older adults: China health and retirement longitudinal study. BMC Geriatr. Mar 30, 2020;20(1):119. [CrossRef] [Medline]
    33. Li Y, Xue QL, Odden MC, Chen X, Wu C. Linking early life risk factors to frailty in old age: evidence from the China Health and Retirement Longitudinal Study. Age Ageing. Feb 27, 2020;49(2):208-217. [CrossRef] [Medline]
    34. Wu C, Smit E, Xue QL, Odden MC. Prevalence and correlates of frailty among community-dwelling Chinese older adults: the China health and retirement longitudinal study. The Journals of Gerontology. Jan 1, 2018;73(1):102-108. [CrossRef]
    35. Xu W, Li YX, Wu C. Incidence of frailty among community-dwelling older adults: a nationally representative profile in China. BMC Geriatr. Dec 30, 2019;19(1):378. [CrossRef] [Medline]
    36. Sha S, Chan SHW, Chen L, Xu Y, Pan Y. The association between trajectories of loneliness and physical frailty in Chinese older adults: does age matter? Int J Environ Res Public Health. Apr 22, 2022;19(9):5105. [CrossRef] [Medline]
    37. Li X, Zhang W, Zhang W, et al. Level of physical activity among middle-aged and older Chinese people: evidence from the China health and retirement longitudinal study. BMC Public Health. Dec 2020;20(1):1-13. [CrossRef]
    38. Tian Y, Shi Z. Effects of physical activity on daily physical function in chinese middle-aged and older adults: a longitudinal study from CHARLS. J Clin Med. Nov 2, 2022;11(21):6514. [CrossRef] [Medline]
    39. Li S, Zhang J, Yang Y. Correlation between the physical activity volume and cognitive and mental capacity among older adult people in China: a cross-sectional study based on the 2020 CHARLS database. Front Public Health. 2024;12:1462570. [CrossRef]
    40. Zhong BX, Zhong HL, Zhou GQ, Xu WQ, Lu Y, Zhao Q. Physical performance and risk of hip fracture in community-dwelling elderly people in China: A 4-year longitudinal cohort study. Maturitas. Apr 2021;146:26-33. [CrossRef] [Medline]
    41. Guralnik JM, Ferrucci L, Simonsick EM, Salive ME, Wallace RB. Lower-extremity function in persons over the age of 70 years as a predictor of subsequent disability. N Engl J Med. Mar 2, 1995;332(9):556-561. [CrossRef] [Medline]
    42. Rubin DB. Multiple Imputation for Survey Nonresponse. Wiley; 1987. [CrossRef] ISBN: 9780471087052
    43. Schmoor C, Schumacher M, Finke J, Beyersmann J. Competing risks and multistate models. Clin Cancer Res. Jan 1, 2013;19(1):12-21. [CrossRef] [Medline]
    44. Swets JA. Measuring the accuracy of diagnostic systems. Science. Jun 3, 1988;240(4857):1285-1293. [CrossRef] [Medline]
    45. Shaughnessy KA, Hackney KJ, Clark BC, et al. A narrative review of handgrip strength and cognitive functioning: bringing a new characteristic to muscle memory. Journal of Alzheimer’s Disease. Feb 18, 2020;73(4):1265-1278. [CrossRef]
    46. Vaishya R, Misra A, Vaish A, Ursino N, D’Ambrosi R. Hand grip strength as a proposed new vital sign of health: a narrative review of evidences. J Health Popul Nutr. Jan 9, 2024;43(1):7. [CrossRef] [Medline]
    47. Peterson MJ, Giuliani C, Morey MC, et al. Physical activity as a preventative factor for frailty: the health, aging, and body composition study. J Gerontol A Biol Sci Med Sci. Jan 2009;64(1):61-68. [CrossRef] [Medline]
    48. Piercy KL, Troiano RP, Ballard RM, et al. The physical activity guidelines for Americans. JAMA. Nov 20, 2018;320(19):2020-2028. [CrossRef] [Medline]
    49. Takamura M, Sone T, Kawamura T, Suzuki R, Moriyama N, Yasumura S. A cross-sectional study on the characteristics of physical activity in pre-frail older adults. Int J Environ Res Public Health. Nov 24, 2021;18(23):23. [CrossRef] [Medline]
    50. Kendall KL, Fairman CM. Women and exercise in aging. J Sport Health Sci. Sep 2014;3(3):170-178. [CrossRef]
    51. Stamatakis E, Huang BH, Maher C, et al. Untapping the health enhancing potential of vigorous intermittent lifestyle physical activity (VILPA): rationale, scoping review, and a 4-pillar research framework. Sports Med. Jan 2021;51(1):1-10. [CrossRef] [Medline]
    52. Hengeveld LM, Wijnhoven HAH, Olthof MR, et al. Prospective associations of diet quality with incident frailty in older adults: the health, aging, and body composition study. J Am Geriatr Soc. Sep 2019;67(9):1835-1842. [CrossRef] [Medline]
    53. Doi T, Makizako H, Tsutsumimoto K, et al. Transitional status and modifiable risk of frailty in Japanese older adults: A prospective cohort study. Geriatrics Gerontology Int. Nov 2018;18(11):1562-1566. [CrossRef]
    54. Zeng XZ, Meng LB, Li YY, et al. Prevalence and factors associated with frailty and pre-frailty in the older adults in China: a national cross-sectional study. Front Public Health. 2023;11:1110648. [CrossRef]
    55. Tse ACY, Wong TWL, Lee PH. Effect of low-intensity exercise on physical and cognitive health in older adults: a systematic review. Sports Med Open. 2015;1(1):37. [CrossRef] [Medline]
    56. Kehler DS, Theou O. The impact of physical activity and sedentary behaviors on frailty levels. Mech Ageing Dev. Jun 2019;180:29-41. [CrossRef] [Medline]
    57. Apóstolo J, Cooke R, Bobrowicz-Campos E, et al. Effectiveness of interventions to prevent pre-frailty and frailty progression in older adults: a systematic review. JBI Database System Rev Implement Rep. Jan 2018;16(1):140-232. [CrossRef] [Medline]
    58. Giné-Garriga M, Roqué-Fíguls M, Coll-Planas L, Sitjà-Rabert M, Salvà A. Physical exercise interventions for improving performance-based measures of physical function in community-dwelling, frail older adults: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Arch Phys Med Rehabil. Apr 2014;95(4):753-769. [CrossRef] [Medline]
    59. Angulo J, El Assar M, Álvarez-Bustos A, Rodríguez-Mañas L. Physical activity and exercise: Strategies to manage frailty. Redox Biol. Aug 2020;35:101513. [CrossRef] [Medline]
    60. Savela SL, Koistinen P, Stenholm S, et al. Leisure-time physical activity in midlife is related to old age frailty. J Gerontol A Biol Sci Med Sci. Nov 2013;68(11):1433-1438. [CrossRef] [Medline]
    61. Borda MG, Pérez-Zepeda MU, Samper-Ternent R, Gómez RC, Avila-Funes JA, Cano-Gutierrez CA. The influence of lifestyle behaviors on the incidence of frailty. J Frailty Aging. 2020;9(3):144-149. [CrossRef] [Medline]
    62. Soares WJS, Lima CA, Bilton TL, Ferrioli E, Dias RC, Perracini MR. Association among measures of mobility-related disability and self-perceived fatigue among older people: a population-based study. Braz J Phys Ther. 2015;19(3):194-200. [CrossRef] [Medline]
    63. Blodgett J, Theou O, Kirkland S, Andreou P, Rockwood K. The association between sedentary behaviour, moderate-vigorous physical activity and frailty in NHANES cohorts. Maturitas. Feb 2015;80(2):187-191. [CrossRef] [Medline]
    64. Stojanovic M, Babulal GM, Head D. Determinants of physical activity engagement in older adults. J Behav Med. Oct 2023;46(5):757-769. [CrossRef] [Medline]
    65. Fried LP, Ferrucci L, Darer J, Williamson JD, Anderson G. Untangling the concepts of disability, frailty, and comorbidity: implications for improved targeting and care. J Gerontol A Biol Sci Med Sci. Mar 2004;59(3):255-263. [CrossRef] [Medline]
    66. Avila-Funes JA, Helmer C, Amieva H, et al. Frailty among community-dwelling elderly people in France: the three-city study. J Gerontol A Biol Sci Med Sci. Oct 2008;63(10):1089-1096. [CrossRef] [Medline]
    67. Cowper PA, Peterson MJ, Pieper CF, et al. Economic analysis of primary care-based physical activity counseling in older men: the VA-LIFE Trial. J Am Geriatr Soc. Mar 2017;65(3):533-539. [CrossRef] [Medline]
    68. Allison R 2nd, Assadzandi S, Adelman M. Frailty: evaluation and management. Am Fam Physician. Feb 15, 2021;103(4):219-226. [Medline]
    69. Zeidan RS, McElroy T, Rathor L, Martenson MS, Lin Y, Mankowski RT. Sex differences in frailty among older adults. Exp Gerontol. Dec 2023;184:112333. [CrossRef] [Medline]

    ‎
    ADL: activity of daily living
    AME: average marginal effect
    AUC: area under the curve
    CHARLS: China Health and Retirement Longitudinal Study
    CHS: Cardiovascular Health Study
    IADL: instrumental activity of daily living
    IPAQ: International Physical Activity Questionnaire
    MTE: metabolic equivalent
    PA: physical activity
    PFP: physical frailty phenotype
    ROC: receiver operating characteristic
    SPPB: Short Physical Performance Battery
    STS: sit-to-stand

    Edited by Michelle Gray; submitted 13.04.25; peer-reviewed by Alvaro Campos Cavalcanti Maciel, Cathy Maxwell, Shinsuke Mizutani; final revised version received 28.07.25; accepted 30.07.25; published 15.09.25.

    Copyright

    © Ziwei Zeng, Chun Liang Hsu, Cindy Hui-ping Sit, Stephen Heung-sang Wong, Yijian Yang. Originally published in JMIR Aging (https://aging.jmir.org), 15.9.2025.

    This is an open-access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/), which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work, first published in JMIR Aging, is properly cited. The complete bibliographic information, a link to the original publication on https://aging.jmir.org, as well as this copyright and license information must be included.